Whether reasonable jurist could debate that trial and appellate counsel failed to invoke 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(20)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether reasonable jurist could debate that trial and appellate counsel failed to invoke 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(20) _ despite abundant legal support for invoking ou the basis of restoration of civil rights, does counsel's error render that failure non-prejudicial? Il. Whether reasonable jurist could debate that appellate counsel failed to raise the issue that a prior conviction was inadmissible under Huddleston because it was | not relevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401, does counsel's error render that failure nou-prejudicial? III. Whether reasonable jurist could debate that appellate counsel failed to raise a Rehaif claim, does counsel's error render that failure non-prejudicial? IV. Whether reasonable jurist could debate that 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to petitioner's non-violent felony based on the new Second Amendment | framework that was adopted in Bruen? | . X\ i ; ;